No doubt the deal will be renegotiated by future governments; that's when rejoining might become a possibility. But it's years away.
No objections from me to Labour voting for the deal - despite my now being very much a Starmer sceptic. There are multiple reasons why Labour should vote for it.
1. We left the EU at the end of January. Leave v Remain has been done since then. Finished.
No doubt the deal will be renegotiated by future governments; that's when rejoining might become a possibility. But it's years away.
But right now, it's just about moving on.
It's wearisome I know. But most of us on here are far more political than most people.
- Appearing patriotic
- Backing the police and the armed forces
- Governing in the 'national interest'
On all three, Labour's position wasn't just bad under Corbyn. It's been worsening for a long, long, long time.
What I'd have done if I were Starmer is turn Labour into a post-Remain party, and seek a progressive, anti-Tory alliance. I despair of his lack of vision.
Does this run the risk of social liberals fleeing? You bet it does. But we can't win without social conservatives. Not under FPTP.
"How's he gonna win the Red Wall back? He's a Remainer!" He's already winning it back by pursuing this approach. And you can't win it back while remaining as socially liberal as Labour has been for decades.
Without those foundation stones in place, Labour won't get a hearing.
So many on here can't handle what that involves.
And THAT's why we've lost so much working class support. Because our values are not their values. Our values are those of the new working class: the young.
We couldn't win when we were too liberal; we'll have big problems winning by being much more Blue Labour.
What do we need? A progressive alliance. That's what we should all be campaigning for in my book.
You can't argue "we lost because of Brexit", then attack him for, er, supporting it.
Leaders with vision would recognise that. Starmer's just doing what he can within a bankrupt system.
I remember how I felt when reading the 2019 manifesto. How awesome I thought it was - because it made me feel so comfortable.
I remember @graceblakeley actually saying that she'd cried tears of joy when reading it too.
More from Politics
OK. The Teams meeting that I unsuccessfully evaded (and which was actually a lot of fun and I'm really genuinely happy I was reminded to attend) is over, so let's take another swing at looking at the latest filings from in re Gondor.
As far as I can tell from the docket, this is the FOURTH attempt in a week to get a TRO; the question the judge will ask if they ever figure out how to get the judge's attention will be "couldn't you have served by now;" and this whole thing is a
The memorandum in support of this one is 9 pages, and should go pretty quick.
But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.
https://t.co/l7EDatDudy
It appears that the opening of this particular filing is going to proceed on the theme of "we are big mad at @SollenbergerRC" which is totally something relevant when you are asking a District Court to temporarily annihilate the US Government on an ex parte basis.
Also, if they didn't want their case to be known as "in re Gondor" they really shouldn't have gone with the (non-literary) "Gondor has no king" quote.
Oh myyyyyyyyyy
— Mike Dunford (@questauthority) January 25, 2021
Good morning, followers of frivolous election-related litigation - new filings in Seditionists v 117th Congress et al. (aka in re Gondor)
I've really got to get stuff done, but there's time for a really quick overview.
As far as I can tell from the docket, this is the FOURTH attempt in a week to get a TRO; the question the judge will ask if they ever figure out how to get the judge's attention will be "couldn't you have served by now;" and this whole thing is a
The memorandum in support of this one is 9 pages, and should go pretty quick.
But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.
https://t.co/l7EDatDudy
It appears that the opening of this particular filing is going to proceed on the theme of "we are big mad at @SollenbergerRC" which is totally something relevant when you are asking a District Court to temporarily annihilate the US Government on an ex parte basis.
Also, if they didn't want their case to be known as "in re Gondor" they really shouldn't have gone with the (non-literary) "Gondor has no king" quote.